ejstubbs

BlueRailways' web site says that their DC controller uses PWM, but at "inaudible frequencies". It doesn't say what the frequency actually is, not does it say whether it uses PWM at fixed voltage (varying the pulse width but not the pulse voltage) which is reported elsewhere as being one of the things that can cause problems with coreless motors. However, in the FAQ it does say: "This is EXACTLY the same method used to drive the motor that a DCC decoder uses. There is plenty of information on the internet about PWM and DCC," which sounds positive since - as reported elsewhere on this thread, coreless motors work OK with DCC. It also says: "The controllers has been widely tested with locomotives from all manufacturers and the only problem was with one loco which had a large value motor suppression capacitor. This worked perfectly after replacing it with a lower value capacitor." One interesting feature of the BlueRailways controllers is that you can set the start voltage, acceleration, deceleration and maximum speed like you can with DCC CVs (although the settings apply to the controller, not to each loco).

There is rather more to it than that. The guts of the controller is the the stuff on the circuit board inside the enclosure. The potentiometer is the thing on the other end of the knob that you use to tell the controller what to do: in simple terms it translates the mechanical position of the knob in to an electronic signal to the controller circuitry telling it how much electricity to send to the track. The Gaugemaster hand-held controllers have the control circuitry within the hand-held enclosure. The Morley hand-helds just have another potentiometer, identical to the one on the main unit, which tells the circuitry in the main unit what to do (there's actually a switch on the main unit to select between the potentiometer on the main unit or the one on the hand-held). That's why it's so easy to make your own hand-held for the Morley, or panel-mount a potentiometer, as David says he's done. It's also why the Morley hand-held doesn't get hot: it's handling very small electrical signals (in the order of a tiny fraction of Watt) compared to the power output circuit which, in the Morley, is all in the main unit (the main unit's metal front panel actually acts as the heat sink for the power transistors).

AIUI the original Morley controlllers did not have the positive click between forward and reverse. ISTR that the feature was introduced a few years ago, so any Morley controller bought new will have it (mine, bought two years ago, does).

According to this Wiki article, up to and including the 1959 season one championship point was awarded for the fastest lap in the race. This seems to have been instead of the single point for sixth place. (I could have sworn that the point for fastest lap was reinstated for a short while sometime in the 1970s or 1980s but the article says not. Might have been a different formula/championship/race series though I'm blowed if I can remember which one.) Edited to say that Formula E apparently does award a point for the fastest race lap, but they've had to tweak the rules to stop drivers with no chance of a points-scoring place going for fastest lap and getting in the way of the actual racing. https://www.motorsport.com/formula-e/news/formula-e-set-to-change-fastest-lap-points-rule-946972/

Which probably explains why I'm more familiar with the term "desert cooler" being used for them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporative_cooler#Disadvantages

That's a job for a technician. I'm only partly joking: the use of the term "engineer" for anyone who can manage to hold a screwdriver the right way round is a perpetual source of annoyance for [some] professionally qualified engineers. However, it cannot be denied that a degree of practical experience, if not necessarily proficiency, is useful in many professional engineering disciplines. OTOH it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if, for example, there were at least a few automotive engineers who can't actually drive. A good many engineers these days probably have more practical expertise in using a computer than they do in wielding physical tools. You also need to take in to account the specialisation and segmentation of disciplines. One of my previous employers was a microelectronics design company. Few if any of the ferociously clever electronic engineers who worked there designing digital audio processing microchips would have had a clue how to run the machines that actually made the things. Contrariwise, the equally smart folks who design and build silicon foundry equipment would likely not get very far with the CAD software that our chip designers used to design and simulation test their microscopically tiny circuits. And why should they? So long as there are people able to facilitate the communication between the two, chips can be designed, simulated, made and tested without any one person needing to be able to understand or execute the end-to-end process at the finest level of detail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technician https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer

The term for this is "unconscious competent": people like this usually make poor teachers because they don't understand/have forgotten how much stuff they themselves had to learn to get to the level of competence that they currently have. It's not a bad thing, just a thing. "Unconscious competents" are often among the very best at doing what they do, but are not terribly good at passing on their accumulated skills and experience to anyone a long way away from their level of competence. The best teachers are usually "conscious competents": they are good at doing what they do, though not necessarily among the very best, but they can remember what it was like starting from ground zero, and all the things they had to learn on the way to reaching the level of competence they now have. They can use that knowledge to inform their teaching so that they pitch each lesson at the right level for their students to be able to learn. An "unconscious competent" can transition towards becoming a "conscious competent" if, like you, they begin to recognise the gap between what they they didn't know that they knew, and what the students don't know. The most dangerous types to have in an organisation or team are the "unconscious incompetents": they're rubbish at the job, but are too stupid to realise it so take on stuff that they aren't actually competent to do, mess it up and waste everyone's time correcting their mistakes. These people can be amongst the first to volunteer to take on a task, which is why a sensible team leader/manager will avoid dumping work on the first person to put their hand up: you need to make sure that they are actually up to the job (or that they have appropriate support, if you want them to learn in the process) before leaving them to it. (See also the Dunning-Kruger effect.) The fourth type of person is the "conscious incompetent": they know the limits of their ability and won't offer or agree to take on work that's beyond their competence out of eagerness or a desire to impress. On the positive side, knowing their limits does mean that they can articulate what help and support they might need to take on a task which stretches their capabilities, if the team requires that eg because no-one else is available - assuming that the bandwidth exists to provide said help and support.

Sorry, it doesn't really make sense - it's the way the world is going. However, as mentioned once already on this thread, XTrackCAD runs on MacOS and is free. Personally I don't get on with it but it does exist as a possible solution to your problem if it's the paying money element of buying apps online that is forbidden. (And it does appear to include Atlas track in the downloadable package: http://www.xtrkcad.org/Wikka/ParameterFiles.)

Now if one saw that location modelled one would be grumbling about the unlikelihood of such a cliched scene: tunnel mouth, level crossing, bridge... Now thinking about how to replicate the steam and smoke billowing out of the tunnel mouth! Here it is on Google Streetview. Just under 2km along the SP456 towards Ovada the line emerges from the north end of the same tunnel as in the video, goes over a level crossing, then over a masonry bridge over the same river, then back in to another tunnel - all in the space of about 200m*. In fact, looking at the line from Acqui Terme to Genova on the map, it almost seems to spend more time in tunnels than in the open! For the sake of those on board the train, I'd hope that most of the other tunnels are rather better ventilated than the one in the video (which is only about half a mile long) seems to have been. * So roughly 3m in OO (or 2.6m in HO).

They called him in, which was fine. As he was coming in he pointed out that Kimi was coming in ahead of him and their immediate response was to tell him to stay out. A fraction of a second later they changed their minds again, which was when the "in in in" screaming started. Lewis had already started to act on their advice to stay out and, quite sensibly IMO, made the decision to stick with the plan immediately in hand. It's almost impossible to do something properly if you're not sure whether or not you're actually supposed to be doing it. In a high-performance, close to the limit sport like F1 swithering and indecision are recipes for failure. Lewis took back control when the team seemed to be losing it. The ability to make decisive choices under pressure is one of the things F1 drivers get paid for. Most teams, AFAIAA, run the tyre strategy from the pit. Mercedes almost give the impression that they are so disorganised that the drivers have to do it themselves. A decently organised team would have a plan to deal with the risk that a close opponent might turn out to be pitting at the same time as your driver, not descend in to chaos as Mercedes gave every impression of doing. (I still reckon that the sooner that Liberty Media and the FIA together find a way to do away with strategic tyre stops the better it will be. Looking at the detail in the tyre specifications reported in this article, in particular the performance degradation rates, makes the game seem so artificial IMO. They might as well specify how often the cars have to break down, or how many times in a season each driver has to drive in to another car. It almost makes Bernie's idea of track sprinklers seem sensible...)

If I were him I'd be having some very serious conversations with the team management about their pit/tyre strategies and tactics. Changing their mind, twice, at the last minute when the track is wet and greasy is not clever. And as we all know, it's far from the first time they've made a mess of things in that department this year.

Harrow, not Eton. But it was the local grammar, not the public school, that he attended. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrow_High_School

Mercedes are now saying that the it was the hydraulics failure that caused the car to run over kerb: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/21/lewis-hamilton-sebastian-vettel-german-grand-prix-qualifying the team said the hydraulic failure caused the power steering to fail on his entrance to the corner, causing him to go so wide

As you say though, the rude, arrogant behaviour is basically enabled by other drivers who are rubbish at queuing: too lazy to move up as the queue advances - or just as likely, too busy fiddling with [the mobile phone nestled in] their crotch to notice when it does. Other annoying queuing behaviour includes people who stop two or three car lengths short of the vehicle in front, then creep forwards sporadically for no detectable reason, the queue in front of them not having moved at all. This makes the queue longer than it needs to be, increasing the likelihood of junctions behind getting blocked, and means that the drivers behind also have to basically creep forward every time the eejit in front does if they are not to end up with an unjustifiably large gap in front of them. When I'm on the VFR I sometimes take perverse pleasure in filtering up the outside of the queue and pointedly pulling in to the unnecessary spaces that such drivers leave. It's a bit like overtaking a middle lane hogger on an otherwise empty motorway by moving all the way over to lane three, and then all the way to lane one again once safely past. Some of them get the message, others are either too stupid to understand or are too thick-headedly stubborn to do what they're supposed to. Less annoying but still difficult to understand are the types who pull up at a red light then after fifteen to twenty seconds start creeping forward as if they think the light is about to change, then stop when they realise it isn't - and then when the light does go green, it seems to take them by surprise and they only react when they notice vehicles in the other lane have already set off. It's as if they're eager to get moving one minute, then suddenly get bored and their mind starts to wander (dare I say, at the risk of appearing to have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about it: quite likely in the direction of their mobile phone). It's almost as if, dare I say it, they're not actually concentrating on the job at hand ie being safely in control of their vehicle. But that couldn't possibly be the case, could it... (By the way, I've heard that the BBC are auditioning for a new series of "Grumpy Old Men". I thought I'd mention it here as some of the regular participants on this thread might be interested in applying. They turned me down on the grounds that I'm not sufficiently "viewer friendly". P.S. Not all of the aforegoing may be strictly true.)

Drifting off topic briefly, I hadn't been aware of this until just now: https://www.motorsport.com/hillclimb/news/dumas-shatters-pikes-peak-record-in-electric-vw-1047461/ First ever sub-eight-minute climb of Pike's Peak, done an in all-electric car. Pretty impressive IMO.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ricciardo-warns-drs-turn-1-german-gp-1061723/ I wasn't aware that DRS was causing the kind of problems described in this article. I had been under the impression that DRS activation was somehow interlocked to track location; if that were the case then I'd have thought that it ought to be possible to have a similar interlock to ensure that the flap closes in good time to brake for an upcoming corner. (Or they could just do away with it because it's a fundamentally daft idea anyway.) Interesting. I wonder whether the ban on tyre blankets will reduce the tactical benefits of tyre stops, if it takes more on-track time for new tyres to become fully effective?

Unfortunately Mike Pett's web site seems to have been AWOL for some time. The phone number listed in the UK Model Shop Directory is 01843 593417. (It would be nice to be able to browse the range online, though.)

If you didn't buy it, you must have made it. (Unless you stole it.)

This is something that the RAIB report seems to let pass rather too easily IMO. It goes on at some length about how the DSD works, states that the foot pedal was found to be working normally, and speculates about why the driver's attempt to reset the DSD after the audible alarm had sounded was ineffective. But it doesn't seem to reach an conclusions about it, or make any recommendations about further action. The fact nonetheless remains that if the train had not stopped in an unexpected place then the incident would never have occurred - it's a clear contributary factor. Granted trains do sometimes have to stop in unexpected places for other reasons eg trespassers, straying livestock or other blockages, some of which may not be under the railway's control. But where the reason for a train having to stop is at least partly within the control of the railway - such as inadequate lineside fencing - then I'd expect that to be called out. How common is it for trains to come to a stop because the vigilance systems have activated the brake? I find it difficult to believe that it's a particularly frequent occurrence - I'm sure you'd hear about it if passenger services were regularly screeching to a halt for no very good reason. Do such incidents have to be reported and monitored?

There ought to be a court record of this case, any idea how I might be able to search for it?

These days it's often not even a case having to buy and fit anything. Many (I'd even suggest the vast majority) of new cars come with bluetooth connectivity: this allows you to play music on the phone or streamed to the phone through the car's audio system, and to make calls without having to hold the phone. As for texting, the more recent Apple and high-end Google phones allow you to have incoming texts read to you, and to send texts by voice. But then far too many people seem to more than happy to pay extortionate amounts every month for the latest smartphone without using even 1% of its available functionality - so long as it's got a tricksy camera and whatstwitfaceagram they're content. (And having spent the money there's a subconscious urge to make use of the thing, even when it's far from appropriate to do so. Much like driving, in all too many cases, in fact.) Going one better, my car has a software add-on to the ICE which will connect to a phone with the Android Auto or Apple CarPlay app installed. Amongst other things, that gives you hands-free texting through the audio system just like hands-free calling, all voice controlled. (It also gives me hands-free sat nav on the audio head unit via Google Maps, which can be handy.)

You'd think this sort of thing would be easy pickings for those employed to enforce the law, especially since there would be a ready-made response to anyone claiming that it represents an escalation of the "war on motorists*": Similar levels of offending are easily observed from the top deck of a bus. * A war the motorists appear to be winning, based on the levels of casualties inflicted by each 'side'.

I thought the correct procedure was to drive past, find a suitable place to turn around, then come back and park from the correct side. Another option might be to find somewhere safe to park on their side of the road, and walk back. Oops, silly me: I forgot that certain types of motorist seem to regard it as their God-given right to be able to park within 20ft of their ultimate destination. After all, what's the point of owning a car if you have to actually use your legs? (A similar aversion to muscular exertion probably explains the oft-observed reluctance to use indicators, or even to turn the steering wheel sufficiently to avoid egregious corner-cutting. Actually, now that I think about it, perhaps it's another more cerebral organ of the body that such individuals struggle to use?)

Is it also now required to teach remaining stationary at the lights after they have been green for several seconds, with your head down apparently staring at something in your lap, then suddenly looking up and moving off with a guilty, slightly furtive air? Difficult to find a logical explanation for this* but it seems to be increasingly popular. Actually, the manoeuvre described by Tim Hall sounds like it might be meant to simulate parking on the opposite side of the road. (Although Highway Code Rule 239 does advise against this, albeit not in very strong terms.) * Actually it's not.

Hmm, according to that we don't have police in Scotland. Could explain a lot about some of the behaviour you see on the roads round here... (Actually we do have police here, and I did once report an incident of illegal driving to them of which I had dashcam footage. They had to send two officers round to my house to view it. Presumably then, although we have police here, they don't have computers...)